Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pissing contest

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 15:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Rationale added per request. The delete "votes" No, they are not votes, but for the lack of a better word, I shall refer to "comments that were weighed by the closing admin" as votes largely argued that the article met did not meet DICDEF's standards. However, many of the deletes were made before the rewrite of the article, and those editors did not update or reaffirm their position afterwards, leading me to weigh their arguments a little less. On the other hand, after the rewrite came a vast influx of policy-based keep "votes" who felt that the article passed DICDEF's standards and had enough proper encyclopedic content to stay as an article. I felt that more weight should be accorded to the keep side for that reason, as nearly all of them analyzed the article as it existed towards the end of the AfD. NW (Talk) 00:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Pissing contest

Pissing contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide, but that's what the article seems to be about. It's not even a particularly useful dictionary entry, combining a convoluted original research explanation and what looks like a random sampling of Google search results as usage examples. Some content might conceivably be salvaged for wikt:Pissing contest.  Sandstein  09:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. To the extent that the nominator's observations are correct, they suggest expansion, not deletion. Many phrases that have definitions in dictionaries are also suited to encyclopedia entries. I am not sure that the information presented in the article is accurate (let alone well-sourced), but the phrase is plausibly one of note and import beyond just its definition. ^Bongo_matic 10:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Phrases themselves are not suitable topics for encyclopedia articles, a single underlying concept is suitable, but this article is about the phrase, and is being used in the article in incompatible ways; a ego-driven verbal discussion is not the same as a urination contest for the purposes of the wikipedia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - This is a misinterpretation of policy; phrases as articles may exist if they contain things other than mere definitions, like origins and evolution of use; see Feck. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFF- I'm not looking at that article, I'm looking at policies like I'm supposed to.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Then look at WP:DICT: "Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, however, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well". This article is not a mere definition. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 06:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not enough to pick one sentence out of the policy, it has to meet the whole policy.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You're not allowed to have articles on two or more distinct meanings of the article name. The article is about both a fight involving urination AND a verbal fight. You can't do that in the wikipedia. An encyclopedia article is on "a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote." This article fails that completely.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be translatable- this one is about a language specific idiom. That's fine in a dictionary, not fine in an encyclopedia. Imagine what would happen if you tried to translate it into Russian or something, half the article becomes garbage to a Russian. That's because they're not the same thing.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Your latest comment regarding language specificity is (a) not supported by policy and (b) patently false. For analogy, is red comprehensible by a blind person? Is tone language understandable to a speaker of English? For a more comparable example, is Red herring something that, in translation, a Russian could understand? ^Bongo_matic 07:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Red herring is wp:otherstuff and is a lousy article. My point is not that idioms are not allowed, it's that you can't correctly have two different topics in one article that are bridged only by a word or phrase. That's the primary difference between dictionaries and encyclopedias.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As it says in encyclopedia: Although the line between dictionary and encyclopedia is somewhat blurry, one test is that because an encyclopedia article's name can usually take many equivalent forms, it can typically be easily translated into other languages, whereas a dictionary entry, which is a linguistic work specifically about the entry's name, cannot.Modern lexicography By Henri Béjoint pg 30 This article is specifically about an English phrase, and cannot be easily translated into a foreign language.- Wolfkeeper 01:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You're simply wrong that translating an article about an idiom or practice in one language results in nonsense. This example is cited not as an example of a great encyclopedia article, but simply to demonstrate that it is abundantly possible to translate information about language-specific idioms into another language. See Three men make a tiger. Don't start OTHERSTUFFING again—this isn't about why the article should or shouldn't be kept, but why one of your now oft-repeated arguments fails. ^Bongo_matic 01:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't engage in ad hominen attack towards me in this way. You are not supposed to be referring to me, you are supposed to be referring to policy and facts. As the reliable source states, in the opinion of the published expert, encyclopedias are translateable, whereas dictionaries are not. A pissing contest as both a contest about urination and a discussion mode (because Wikipedia articles are on one topic, this article essentially claims they are the same thing) does not translate, and this is strong evidence that this article is not currently encyclopedic.- Wolfkeeper 01:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

When I refer to you and your argument, it is not an ad hominem (for future reference, note correct spelling—and note that this Wikipedia entry is another demonstration of the the fallaciousness of the argument on translation) attack. You are the editor who advanced this line of inquiry. Again, you are conflating different threads of your article. You asked and wrongly answered, "Imagine what would happen if you tried to translate it into Russian or something, half the article becomes garbage to a Russian", an answer that has been demonstrated wrong. ^Bongo_matic 01:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You're still attacking me, not the argument. In Three men make a tiger, the article takes the phrase in a single way. It does not talk about putting three men in a tiger costume or three men making a tiger out of paper mache or any other such thing. Because it's only on one thing, that's (in most cases) a valid article. When it's on two essentially unrelated things that happened, by accident or history, to be called the same, then they're dicdefs.- Wolfkeeper 18:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

When you have two different meanings you need two different articles.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per the same policy given by the nominator. While the list of examples is not enough, the information on the origin of the term coming from actual pissing contests on walls means that this article "provide[s] other types of information about that topic as well". I would like to see some information on when the term first being used in this manner, however, and possibly info on the original literal pissing contests. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - slang term that isn't particularly world-centric. Article attempts to inflate importance by referring to an entirely different slang term, presumably to pad the list of available references. Concept much better described with article on competition. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The article could obviously do with some expansion, but it should not have been brought here so precipitously. There is a history behind the term, as Scapler says, both as the original game and in its modern adoption. That the article does not yet develop those themes coherently is an argument for expansion, not deletion. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, it is just a colloquial term for competition. Many similar colloquial terms for competitions and duels exist that are of this nature. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  Not quite; it's a term used to describe "any contest which is futile or purposeless, esp. one pursued in a conspicuously aggressive manner". That doesn't sound like a definition of "competition" to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  But it is still a colloquial term that is more suited to (and exists within) Wiktionary. The only references likely to be found are of use of the term, rather than its origin. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  Colloquial in what regard, its use in news and book writing suggests that it is not "only appropriate for casual casual, ordinary, familiar, or informal conversation" (from Colloquialism). --kelapstick (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  I would argue that the opposite was the case. I doubt the term crops up in formal writing very often - rare exceptions, perhaps. My own brief research on this term (before !voting) lead me to believe that the term came into use in the '80s, growing out of the more prominent term "pissing match" from the '70s. Most dictionaries refer to the terms as "slang", which follows on from what the nominator was saying. Either way, this is material for Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  It's the origin of the term that make it interesting. The first recorded use of the term occurred in the modern sense was during a 1943 Senate hearing, predating your "pissing match" hypothesis by 30 years. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  Please don't refer to my words as a "hypothesis". As I indicated above, my conclusions were based on some limited research, not pure guesswork. I take AfD more seriously than that. That being said, it is still slang, and thus the proper place for this is Wiktionary. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "hypothesis", but more importantly your hypothesis is incorrect. That "pissing contest" is a slang term is neither here nor there. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  If you mean to use the word as in "conjecture", then that is reasonable and I have no objection. I am quite happy to be proven wrong by new data, but that doesn't change the fact that this is slang more appropriate for a different wiki. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There is however, nothing preventing slang expressions from existing on Wikipedia, I believe that it is best that the two of you agree to disagree on whether or not slang expressions have a place here, lest you begin your own pissing contest (last part added entirely for humourous purposes).--kelapstick (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the existence of slang expressions on Wikipedia is in conflict with Policy. Many of the articles in that category are tagged as being duplicates of Wiktionary articles - with good reason. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• This phrase didn't originate in the 80s. The OED has it down to 1943, and as Malleus points out Pope mentioned the compound several centuries earlier. Parrot of Doom 21:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. This phrase is part of the English vernacular, and may have interesting origins. There were quite a few medieval streets in London called Pissing Alley, and part of me wonders if the two aren't related. I'll try and find more. Parrot of Doom 17:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  Nah, the various places named "Pissing Alley" were so named because there were certain places that people congregated to piss in the street before the Great Fire of London. A particular favorite of mine (of similar ilk) is Gropecunt Lane. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think I've a vague memory of having seen Gropecunt Lane before ... --Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  I wonder how Pissing Alley got into that article... The English language is a strange thing. The term may have developed originally from the activities taking place on such streets. One never knows until one investigates. Parrot of Doom 21:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - WP:NAD is pretty clear on this matter. Wikipedia is for "a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote." Wiktionary is "the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote." This clearly falls under the latter definition. To my mind, this is similar in nature to "pissing in the wind". Neither of these should have Wikipedia articles. "Penis extension" (slang for a man's sports car, fancy yacht, etc.) is another example. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  Seems clear to me as well. "Pissing contest" is a concept, thus meeting your criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And a thing. There are, after all, literal as well as figurative pissing contests. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• (after ec) - Er... no. "Pissing contest" is a slang term to describe a type of competition between rivals. And they are Wikipedia's criteria, not my own. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

←I am not allowed to respond directly to CoM's comment above, since we are both under an editor interaction restriction. As a general remark, however, I would point out that there are literal as well as figurative cases of "pissing in the wind" as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be advisable then for you to offer no further input at this AfD, lest it may be interpreted by some as personally motivated rather than on the merits of the case. Your deletion vote has been cast. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying this to me, or to ChildofMidnight? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that now my agent provocateur has joined the conversation, I should leave it? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting to you that as this is an article created earlier today by your "agent provocateur", some may be inclined to suspect your motives in arguing so persistently for its deletion. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of who created the article until well into the conversation above, but that has no bearing on the issue. I came to this AfD from here. As a self-described deletionist, I regularly peruse AfD lists for things which take my fancy. Your insinuation above is unwarranted and unwelcome in an AfD discussion. If you insist on assuming bad faith ("some may be inclined" fails to mitigate your obvious assumption), then I respectfully suggest that it is you who should consider removing yourself from this process. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be determined to misunderstand. So be it. I have insinuated nothing, I simply offered you an interpretation of events that some less generously minded than myself may find persuasive, whether you find that unwelcome or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well you were the one who came up with the "interpretation". Nobody else has made any statements of bad faith. These remarks of yours are wholly inappropriate for an AfD discussion. Please confine yourself to the topic at hand. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. If someone can actually come up with sources to support an article on actual pissing contests, fine, but this is a non-article simply about a phrase that could be adequately and more appropriately covered in Wiktionary.--Michig (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  Alexander Pope describes a pissing contest in his satire The Dunciad, published in 1728. Did you never see or take part in a pissing contest when you were at school? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  Awesome. But not a reliable source, since it's a work of satire. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  Since you ask, no, we tended towards football, marbles, and fighting. Not that this would have any relevance whatsoever to this discussion.--Michig (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  I will grant you that it is unlikely ever to become an Olympic sport, certainly, but there is absolutely no doubt that it is, or has been, a popular diversion particularly amongst adolescent schoolboys. Hence this is not just an article about a slang phrase; it's an article about a pastime that has become a slang phrase. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  But the same can be said for many things of this nature, such as comparing penis size. The issue here is that "pissing contest" is a slang term to describe a competition between rivals, that has its roots in a non-notable adolescent activity. There is nothing encyclopedic here. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  So now the argument is that the activity is not notable, rather than that it doesn't exist? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  (after ec with Michig) - The article is about the slang term ("Pissing contest or pissing match is a slang idiom used metaphorically..."), not the act itself. The term belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. If the article is going to be changed into being about the act of a pissing contest, then (as stated by Michig above), reliable sources would have to be found that describe the activity (which I doubt would pass the notability test). I'm not suggesting that actual pissing contests don't happen - of course they do, but that is not what the article is about. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This article needs to be about one subject. Actual pissing contests (not covered in the article when it was nominated) and the phrase/concept are two separate topics.--Michig (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Whether the actual contests were mentioned at the time of nomination or not is irrelevant; they're mentioned now. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Actually you're completely wrong. Several opinions early on in the discussion were based solely on an article about the phrase (or concept if you must). So now we're discussing an article on a different subject. Or at least two subjects. Not really helpful. The 'actual' PC stuff should be moved to a separate article and judged on its own merits.--Michig (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Actually it's you that's wrong. The actual contest was most certainly not mentioned in the article at the time of this nomination, and the development of the slang from the event is obviously relevant to this article. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Michig was correctly stating that most of the above discussion developed while the article was describing the slang term, not the actual pissing contest. You must have misunderstood, MF. Michig further stated that this new material (concerning the pissing contests themselves) should be moved to a different article and judged independently. That is entirely appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - interesting look at the history, but seems much more suitable for Wiktionary.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Dictionary definition. Including a list of people who've used the phrase doesn't make it any more encyclopedic. Epbr123 (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This phrase goes beyond simple slang. It is widely used, notable, humorous and very old. In my modest opinion it is encyclopedic and something worthy of baeing a part of the human knowledge database. You know, it could almost be said that this discussion is one...Turqoise127 (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Possibly, but you'd have to explain the analogy/allegory: what, in this discussion, is the urine, and how is "far" defined? Drmies (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete An article is defined by the scope at the top. As currently scoped this is about the term, not any underlying meaning, so according to WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary it must be deleted.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Wiktionary material SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 19:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Interesting and well-sourced article. Look forward to seeing its expansion. More historical and folklore examples particularly... On a related note, I've always thought the Latrinalia "Here I sit all broken-hearted..." deserved a Featured Article. I think Alan Dundes wrote an essay on it back in the '60s... there's an interesting project for someone... Dekkappai (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how you can describe this article as "well-sourced", to be honest. Most of the sources are simply colloquial, incidental uses of the term in some literature and articles that aren't directly related to the subject. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Some editors here have made an astonishing number of contributions to this discussion, many repetitive. While it is neither policy nor guideline, WP:BLUDGEON would seem to be recommended reading for such editors. ^Bongo_matic 02:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for the meta statement. That's more suitable for the talk page of this AfD. I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that this is a significant AfD because it could, potentially, open the floodgates for all kinds of sayings, neologisms, colloquialisms and slang - that probably explains the keen interest. It's certainly what attracted me to the AfD to !vote in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:DICTIONARY. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Please understand that just because a term might appear in a dictionary, its article isn't necessarily a "dictionary definition". This article goes into an in-depth encyclopedic discussion of the term's history and etymology, which is not in such detail appropriate for en.wiktionary. Although much of this article does need to be cleaned up, I think it's clearly a valid and acceptable topic. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  The policy is that encyclopedia articles are not simply deeper or more detailed dictionary articles, just because you've lengthened a dictionary article doesn't make it encyclopedic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  The fact that all the history and etymology info is sourced from dictionary's does suggest that this is a dictionary definition. Epbr123 (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  The article provides notable information about the phrase outside of that which can be found in a dictionary, thus making it an acceptable article. As I said, an article can only be deemed a "dictionary definition" if it's just that, and nothing more –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, contrary to popular belief, there's no such policy. You don't get encyclopedia articles just by adding to dictionary articles.- Wolfkeeper 17:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  Nor is there a policy that states articles on phrases that happen to be in a dictionary must be removed. As with all articles, if there are reliable sources on a phrase, it becomes notable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  That at least is more or less correct; you're allowed articles with titles that are phrases; what you can't do is make the article cover two different meanings of the title. You need two articles for that. This article is trying to do too much, and hence is unencyclopedic.- Wolfkeeper 18:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  That's hardly a valid argument for deletion. If a page requires editorial cleanup, the proper solution is to clean it up, which I've done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  As defined, this article is still inherently a dictionary definition.- Wolfkeeper 18:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  Again, that's false; please substantiate your argument. A "dictionary definition" is an article that focuses solely on the definition of a term, whereas this article explores the history and etymology of the phrase. "Dictionary definition" can not blindly be applied to any article which covers a word or phrase. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  I already did. Please state which bit of WP:NAD says that a dicdef is "an article that focuses solely on the definition of a term"; as there is absolutely no part of that policy which states that.- Wolfkeeper 18:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

  The title of said guideline itself is sufficient; an article cannot possibly be deemed a dictionary entry if it provides context additional to that of an actual dictionary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - This article has been substantially altered since nomination, and the actual subject of the article is now different from that which formed the basis of the nomination; however, the result is an article that seems confused about its focus. The sourcing is terribly poor, with most seemingly citing uses of the slang term (which is no longer the subject of the article). I now believe that this AfD has effectively been invalidated, because half the !votes and comments concern an article that is utterly dissimilar to what exists now. This cannot be the first time something like this has happened during an AfD discussion. What is the procedure for dealing with an AfD where the subject of the article changes in the middle of discussion? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  People can change their vote if they want.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Yes, the article is now about one half about the slang term, one fourth about literal pissing contests among humans, and one fourth about (I kid you not) literal pissing contests among lobsters. I believe that in this form, the article should be deleted (but userfied on request) as an indiscriminate collection of information in addition to being a dicdef; one can't just throw together everything under the sun that has ever been referred to as a "pissing contest" into an article just in the hope that enough people will find something in this WP:SYNTH hodgepodge interesting enough to want to keep it. I do not object to an article being created specifically about literally pissing humans (or pissing lobsters, for that matter), if these topics pass WP:GNG, but this is not it. I don't think the AfD is invalid; the closing administrator just needs to assess whether the earlier opinions remain pertinent. In my opinion, they do, because the dicdef content is still there.  Sandstein  16:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for that clarification - and I am in broad agreement with your comments. Perhaps the content should be split into Pissing contest (activity), Pissing contest (slang) and Pissing contest (awesome lobster behavior) for independent assessment! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Lack of focus, unencyclopedic, slang dicdef. Not a viable encyclopedia article, sorry. --John (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note - I've stubbified this article so it now focuses on the term itself rather than... lobsters peeing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• But now it's basically back to the original dictionary definition, and thus more appropriate for Wiktionary. I can't help wondering if the English lobsters engaged in pissing contests when they should've been fighting for the King! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• That isn't true. I've just added info taken from a book source (definitely not a dictionary) and I have quite a few more reliable sources I intend to incorporate into the article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've rewritten the lead to restore the reference to the actual game that you removed Julian. That's got to be there, else the arguments of those saying this should be in wiktionary carry some weight. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's fine. I hadn't realized I accidentally removed it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not enough; you have to completely remove every other interpretation other than one from the lead, and the body cannot cover anything except that definition. And an encyclopedia article must cover basically everything about that definition, so if it's too broad you have to pull other things in as well.- Wolfkeeper 18:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What? There's no rule that says an article has to cover a particular topic in only the most narrow sense. In this case, a brief background on the origins of the term—obviously, an actual pissing competition—is likely necessary to comprehensively describe the term itself. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite. That's just plain and simple rubbish. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict with MF) - But that's the problem right there. Most entries of actual figures of speech (rather than types of figures of speech) in Category:Figures of speech have a problem with them. Most are tagged for being DICDEFs or needing mergers. That's because figures of speech belong in Wiktionary. If there is actually a notable pissing contest out there, an article could be made for that. Then the figure of speech could be alluded to within the article, I suppose. But not the other way around. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

How is a figure of speech different from any other topic? WP:N states than if multiple secondary reliable sources cover a topic, it's usually notable enough for inclusion. Given that this article is comprised of info derived from reliable sources, it's perfectly acceptable to be on Wikipedia. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two dictionary sources (one each for the activity and the term), a source related to the Urban Dictionary (not reliable) and another source I cannot access (and so I'm not exactly sure what it is supposed to reference). Only one source is related to the actual subject (currently the activity, although this apparently changes on an hourly basis according to how this discussion is going), and the others relate to the figure of speech. This looks like nothing more than a desperate scramble to keep a poor article that has no proper focus, attempting to justify its pitiful existence by hopping from one leg to another like a lizard on the hot sands of the Sahara. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What isn't reliable about Urban dictionary: fularious street slang defined? Please note that it's different from the website Urban Dictionary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems to support the "term", not the subject of the article. So it isn't a reliable source for the subject of the article (as it currently stands). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, the book is written by the guy who created the website, and who is a computer science major - hardly an authority on the term or the contest! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's fine; the information presented is of an uncontroversial nature (I don't think anyone would reasonably question the definition of a "pissing contest"...) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not about questioning the term - of course it is a legitimate figure of speech. The problem is that the source does not support the subject of the article. Wikipedia relies on sources, not "truth". -- Scjessey (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

How is that relevant? The Urban Dictionary book is being used to cite its own definition of the term, so it's perfectly reasonable to use it as a source. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's completely ridiculous. The Urban Dictionary is a user-generated website that gets no peer review. We are using a book written by the creator of the site to reference a definition from the site - a definition that isn't even about the subject of the article in the first place. That's like using this article as a reference for what an eye is, or what an apple is. Utter nonsense. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand unfortunately. This article uses the Urban Dictionary book to cite its own quote, so it cannot possibly be considered unreliable within the context it's being used in. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A figure of speech is a pattern of words/letters in a particular language. An encyclopedia article is about what words/letters refer to, and what it refers to must be a single thing. Just like we don't allow articles on 'apples and spanners'. That's what you're trying to do here; you're linking things together based on the letters/words only, not on what they are; a urination contest is not the same as a heated discussion, even if we call them by the same phrase for them both. In the wikipedia things are grouped on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are.- Wolfkeeper 18:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I can only encourage you to help out then by improving the article's focus. I think we've established that the phrase is adequately notable, we just need to bring the article up to standard and decide how much weight to give to the physical pissing contest itself. Deletion doesn't seem like the most productive course of action here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

All articles can be theoretically saved by renaming, redefining and rewriting. However that would then be a different article. The AFD is on this one.- Wolfkeeper 19:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, only notable topics such as this. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion is the only reasonable result from this mess. Let me highlight the focus problem alluded to by Wolfkeeper by asking about categorization. Should it be categorized as a figure of speech or a game of physical skill, for example? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A figure of speech obviously, as that's the most notable usage of the phrase. It isn't really that difficult. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Both. Categorization isn't a binary activity. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep A valid article and not really suitable for Wiktionary because of all the background info. Anyone who attempted to expand wikt:pissing contest to take on the extra information found in this article would probably be quickly reverted, so to "transwiki" this article would be effectively to delete it. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Then it should be deleted, because right now this is an article about two separate subjects that are united because they cannot stand alone. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Why does it need to be deleted then? If there's a disagreement as to where the article's focus should lie, the logical solution is to seek editorial consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Since the article seems to be wobbling back and forth between a stubbish 4000-byte thing and 10000+ bytes or more, I'd like to clarify that my preference right now is for the minimal version, but that I would welcome the addition of further content provided it is eventually agreed upon on the talk page. But I'm not in favor of deletion of any form of the article at any time. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strongest possible keep This is both a notable competitive game, and a closely related phrase based on that game has its own interesting and significant history. The idea that a subject shouldn't be covered in a way that includes it's role in lunguistics and popular culture is absolute nonsense. Are we allowed to note that a slam dunk also refers to a sure thing? Can we point out that driving fast and spinning out in a tight circle is referred to as a donut? Can we note that rap is a form of music that is also a refers to chatter? Absolutely. This example is even clearer because the game and the meaning of the phrase are so closely related. And as far as objections to the sourced content noting that lobsters engage in pissing matches, we should base article content on what the reliable sources say not the original research and personal whims of the disgruntled and uninformed, who for whatever reason, don't happen to like this subject and want it deleted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Seriously? A notable competitive game? Do you think it is a contender for inclusion in the Olympics, for example? --John (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • No more likely than tiddlywinks or shove ha'penny probably, but so what? Are you proposing that all games that have no chance of being fearured in the Olympics should be deleted? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • (ec) Lots of games are included in encyclopedias that aren't part of the Olympics? Should we delete the article on hopscotch? Kickball? High fives? Headbutts? I don't see how deleting this subject improve the encyclopedia. Is it important that people be prevented from learning about what a pissing contest is, how it is used as a colloquial phrase, how it came about, and that lobsters have their own form of it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  No, car donut is not valid in doughnut which is about pastries, and a sure thing is not allowed in the basketball article slam dunk. Thanks for pointing out these eroneous contributions.- Wolfkeeper 19:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  Wolfkeeper, what's this about? I obviously have an opinion on this article, but no matter the outcome you have to respect consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  I expect the result will represent consensus about how the article (doesn't) accord with policy, so it will not be necessary to go to DRV. I remind you and everyone that this is not a vote.- Wolfkeeper 20:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep for now. The article has been substantially improved over the past two days. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Article goes beyond a dictionary definition, the phrase has a long and colorful history and the page is well sourced. J04n(talk page) 20:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The article has been greatly improved since the nomination. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - FFS is this the Wikipedia or the urbandictionary? Obvious dictionary-ish slang that is being stretched mighty thin with supposed examples and historical usage. Tarc (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per expansion and wide use of the term. WP:RS used, and has encyclopedic content, rather than just dictionary content. This AFD looks like a pissing contest. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep If there is a bureaucratic problem, split the article into two - one for the literal meaning and the other for the figurative one
• Comment to closing admin this is not a vote, and none of the 6 !vote's immediately above this (including the delete vote) quote any policy at all, they therefore need to be discarded out of hand. Thanks!- Wolfkeeper 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment this is not a vote, please keep your !vote's to discussing how the article does or does not follow the policies of the wikipedia.- Wolfkeeper 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment this is not a vote either. I cite policy clearly, even linking to such policy. Please expand on how you say that these votes (I see another that cites policy) don't cover policy. I can see that you just can't wait to see the article deleted, but making broad assumptions about votes isn't the best way to do things on AFD. If you want I can cite tons of policy that would allow such an article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep; notable phrase, notable concept, and the article looks better and better all the time. (Particularly like the newly-added lobster section.) Having articles like this is one of the things that makes Wikipedia so great, imho. It's well beyond a Wiktionary entry at this point. Antandrus (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —- Wolfkeeper 00:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I don't think the "Among females" section would fit into Wictionary, and it shows quite clearly that the article is encyclopedic, not dictionaric (not to mention uric). Wikipedia needs to cover this, even more than so many of us apparently need to participate in it. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment if you genuinely can add multiple different definitions to single articles like this then articles like flight need information about arrow flights added onto them, rocket needs to add information about people running around quickly; jumping up in the air; and driving fast. In fact, lots and lots of articles suddenly look horribly incomplete, and many, many, many things need to be copied repetitively across the whole wikipedia, and there's no policy to stop them; there's no policy that forces mergers at all, and no policy about the 'best' place to put them. The article on Paris needs to cover Paris, Texas. Articles like back need to cover all the 19 different meanings in wiktionary:back including the 'reverse side'. It seems to be a really radical change that the keep votes are effectively calling for.- Wolfkeeper 02:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• I believe that you've already made your point several times. I see no merit in continually repeating it. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think I've made this point. If as you Malleus state above that "Pissing contest" is a concept then the simple word "back" is also and hence all possible interpretations must or may, for completeness, be added as well? Is this not the point you were making? Words are concepts? Human back, and reverse, to go rearwards, these are all highly related, and hence must be in the back article?- Wolfkeeper 03:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Not all of the meanings of "back" are related which is why we have disambiguation pages. Sometimes subjects are best merged and other times they need to be split up or differentiated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

They are all absolutely and completely related by the English word back. The English Wikipedia is about the English language??? The term 'pissing contest' relates in English to a urination contest or a verbal disagreement. Because they are related by a term like that, they need to go in the same article, and the same with the back article????- Wolfkeeper 18:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Wolfkeeper, I think the flight article already includes coverage of the motion through air achieved in launching arrows. And if it doesn't, it should. It's possible that an article like that might need to be broken up (disambiguated) into bird flight, lift, propulsion, spaceflight etc. but I think it probably treats the subject broadly and points to those subtopics. They are methods of flight achieved by very different means, but they are related. The article on rockets could certainly mention that the word has also been adapted to refer to anything that's very fast and that rockets are used as a team mascot (if those things aren't already included). As long as concepts are related it seems to be a matter of sourcing, weight and how best to include the information. I'm not sure how adding this type content makes an article less good. Why would it make sense for this article to only relainclude literal aspects of the subject? Or to exclude examples in animals? Certainly readers understand that humans in a pissing match are not the same as lobsters. Paris and Paris, Texas are two different places. But if one is named after the other that could certainly be mentioned (perhaps in both articles). It's a question of weight and what's worth including. If Paris, Texas is named after Paris, France, that's probably worth noting in the Paris, Texas article. I don't know if it's significant for the Paris, France article, that seems like a judgment call. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The flight article does not including information about the feathers on arrows which are referred to as 'flights', even though they help it fly, nor does the wikipedia cover flights of stairs. In English, these are related by the word flight, and this is the English Wikipedia. What's the difference to this article?- Wolfkeeper 18:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Let the closing admin decide who has made the better case. Isn't that the way that AfD is supposed to work? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• 'Delete per nom - 4twenty42o (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - well sourced, topic formed into an encyclopedic entry. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as the article is now, it seems to be an exact version of what's described in the WP:DICT section here[1]. Even after reading all the discussion above, I still don't know what would describe it any better than that. There's always disambiguation, but that seems really pointless when the social use is a direct extension of a literal use and then one would actually be a dictionary definition and nothing more. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• delete There are faults with this article which could be corrected, making it a suitable candidate for inclusion in Wikitionary. The urban dictionary already has such an article. It is not a good article for Wikipedia because of the first pillar of Wikipedia which indicates that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dictionary style articles include more than just the definition of a word. They can include derivation, part of speech, declension, conjugation, usage examples, synonyms and antonyms. All information about "pissing contest" falls into one of two categories. It is dictionary style material or it is off topic.

There is a lack of consensus for the inclusion of dictionary style material as indicated by the lack of consensus in this AfD. Dictionary style articles increase the administrative difficulty by introducing different standards of quality than are used in encyclopedia style articles. That increases the difficulty for editors in general since we all share a portion of the administrative burden.

This sort of article is inappropriate because some(addition) are offended by the vulgarity of such an article and do not want to find one when choosing the random article function. It lowers respect of Wikipedia by giving the impression that it is written by authors who have the need most prominently seen in adolescents to demonstrate their independence by violating conventions and the restrictions of authority. People who want such articles can go to the other web sites that have such articles. If such web sites do not have as high reputation of Wikipedia, it is an indication that such web sites are not so desired by people in general. It is not an indication that Wikipedia's status should be dragged down to their level.--Fartherred (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

comment Wikipedia articles are required to be of one topic. If they are of two topics one of the topics is off topic.--Fartherred (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference

• Delete. This article is confused as to its topic. While it attempts to describe literal pissing contests, it references no reliable sources that are primarily about that topic. Referencing a dictionary in the lead is particularly telling. The other references are mere uses of the phrase, not discourses on the topic; thus, assembling an article out of those references is practically original research. The rest of the article is a mishmash of topics that are tangentially related to the main topic, and thus do not belong.
  But let me make a few things clear. First and foremost, our policy that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary does not only prohibit dictionary definitions. It is astonishing how often that fallacy is trotted out -- "oh, this is more than just a definition!" I wish we could abolish that damned "DICDEF" shortcut once and for all, since that seems to be the source of the problem. NAD prohibits dictionary entries, and a dictionary entry is much more than just a definition. A dictionary entry includes definitions, pronunciation, etymology, usage notes, and usage examples. No matter how much text one includes in an article, if it all falls into those five categories, it's still a dictionary entry. Furthermore, it's irrelevant whether "en.wiktionary" would take the content verbatim or not. The policy is "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" not "Wikipedia is not Wiktionary".
  Please take some time to read what the NAD policy actually says and try to understand why it says it. Don't pay attention just to the words but to the intent. Powers ^T 13:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

  Please take some time to understand why NAD was originally written. Here is where it started. Read through Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary/Archive 1 for further edification. Discuss further at WT:NAD. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an encyclopedic treatment, not a dictionary entry. They don't want this information at Wiktionary (See Angr's comment). There is a strong disagreement (spanning many months) that the nom understands NAD 'correctly'. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • What do Wiktionary's inclusion standards have to do with ours? Just because Wiktionary doesn't "want it" doesn't mean we do. Powers ^T 20:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

    This debate is based on the idea that "This information belongs in a dictionary". If our WP:Sister project (Meta) which is a dictionary disagrees with that, and says that this is "encyclopedic information" - then - there is a flaw in the reasoning somewhere.
    I'm suggesting the flaw is in anyone's understanding our NAD policy to be overly strictly exclusionary (e.g "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers").
    The NAD policy is intended to explain that some content may be better moved to Wiktionary. This is crucial.
    Therefor: If the information is valuable/relevant/worthy-of-recording-somewhere (which in this and many of the other cases it clearly is) - if it is either encyclopedic information or dictionary-information - then it must belong in one of these 2 places. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

    Point of fact, the Wiktionary has an article on this at: Wiktionary:pissing contest and covers much the same ground, which seems to imply pretty strongly that they do in fact think it is a dictionary topic. But even if they didn't, the principle in WP:NAD states that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, not that it is not Wiktionary.. At the end of the day, the Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for every failed dictionary article that couldn't cut it at Wiktionary, for any reason at all (including being too long, short or any other reason).- Wolfkeeper 00:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    In point of fact the wiktionary entry is rather poor in comparison to this article, but this getting rather confusing. Is your argument that "pissing contest" should be in either wiktionary or here, not both? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Neither. The policy says that whether it is in Wiktionary or not is not a valid issue here. Every wikiproject makes its own inclusion criteria.- Wolfkeeper 01:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Right. So are you proposing that, for instance, the lobster pissing information isn't encyclopedic, and neither are the literary references to actual pissing contests? Let's remind ourselves what the nominator's objection to this article were; a poor dictionary definition, and original research, both of which have now been invalidated by the work that's been done on this article since its nomination. There are a great many legal phrases that have wikipedia entries, without any underlying basis in an actual game like this one does. Do you propose to crusade for their deletion as well? If not, why not? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    The article is exactly as bad as it has ever been, and has not been in any way fixed. It defines the topic to be both urination contests (literal definition of article) as well as the metaphorical use. You can't do both of those in one article. You need two articles. It's the fact that the legal phrases do not cover the underlying basis like this one that makes them OK. Sure you can mention the basis; you can even link to it, you just can't cover it; that would be done in a different article.- Wolfkeeper 03:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    You keep beating the same drum, without explaining why it is that an article shouldn't be comprehensive in describing the origins and current usage of a phrase. Is that because youy can't? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    As I understand it, nothing about this process tries to force people that may or may not be pretending to not to understand the policy (i.e. you), to have to declare that they suddenly agree by persuasion by me or others. I only have to point out that an article fails to meet the relevant policy. Whether you like it or not, it does not meet the relevant policy and is therefore eligible for deletion. You have until this closes to make it do so.- Wolfkeeper 03:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

comment This discussion should be about the deletion of "Pissing_contest" not the possible future deletions of other articles, no matter how desired such deletions might be.--Fartherred (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It ought also to consider the implications of deleting this article on the many articles on Latin legal phrases, which really are nothing more than dictionary definitions. One can't help but wonder why so many haven't pursued them to the grave; could it possibly have anything to do with a certain puritan distaste for the vulgar? Surely not. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you have an example feel free to nominate though.- Wolfkeeper 03:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the stupidities of wikipedia is its lack of respect for precedent. Would you be joining me in a howling match to have Prout patet per recordum deleted? Isn't that the epitomy of a dictionary definition? The answer of course is that no, you wouldn't, because it doesn't contain the word "pissing". --Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this isn't the stupid part. This is necessitated by the lack of a hierarchy. We don't want to be bound by precedent created by a small subset of editors, which is what AfD discussions are. So the stupid part is the main good part—lack of hierarchy, lack of an effective procedural bureaucracy that prevents people from doing stuff. ^Bongo_matic 05:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Nommed. Thank you. Feel free to point out any other articles you think are similar. (Although I hasten to point out that an article created yesterday should hardly be held up as an example of a precedent we ought to be following.) Powers ^T 13:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I fear that your crusade is going to make you rather busy.[2] --Malleus Fatuorum 13:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so since I nominated one, I must nominate them all or I'm being inconsistent, is that it? Powers ^T 13:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Dictionary entry with tortured and synthetic examples. PhGustaf (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• The examples are neither "tortured" nor "synthetic". --Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, you have made you opinion abundantly clear by now, what with a dozen+ replies to various entries of others above and all. Attempting to refute everyone who you disagree with in a XfD is going a bit overboard, IMO. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Attempting to correct those who are mistakenly interpreting a policy they only half understood is not "going overboard" in my book, so I will continue to refute whatever I choose whenever I choose. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• That's the problem with believing your right vs. knowing you're right. But hey, good luck with that. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, Hi I already voted, just wish to go on record with my opinion of one above stated comment. I think this activity should DEFINITELY become an olympic sport. The ratings would be unprecedented. Heck, I would even go to a prequalification contest myself... Turqoise127 (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment the article is even a substantial WP:content fork of an article created by the same person at nearly the same time (Battle of egos).- Wolfkeeper 03:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Which isn't inherently problematic. POV forks are bad, content forks are perfectly good if implemented properly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The policy says: Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.- Wolfkeeper 04:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether he or she deliberately created the fork, the result is the same: the content should be merged back into the main article.- Wolfkeeper 04:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You're saying all sub-articles should be merged with their main page? Barack Obama would crash a few browsers... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you're saying that. I'm saying these aren't sub-articles. Sub articles aren't content forks.- Wolfkeeper 05:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

They appear to be two articles on the same topic to me. It's not that one is a subarticle of the other (and even if it was, a merge would not be problematic because neither is very long), it's that they cover the same topic, don't they? Powers ^T 13:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Several things actually: 1.) WP:NAD isn't a policy, and in fact, it technically isn't even a guideline - it's an interpretation of a section of WP:NOT, thus, in effect - it is an essay. 2.) The article (pissing contest) isn't written as a "definition", and is therefore not even in any violation of the "Not a dictionary" section of WP:NOT. It is referenced, and the the references are somewhat reliable resources. 3.) That leaves the notability aspects of it all. IMHO this meets our WP:GNG, Therefore I'd have to say keep. The one thing (and it's mentioned above) that perhaps could be done would be to split the two items (the actual "contest" and the "phrase") and dab them. At this point in time I don't really see enough content here for that however. Having read through all of this, I think the strength of the keep !votes here have more strength in their arguments than do those who lean toward the delete camp. — Ched :  ?  14:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - though I agree with the keep, I feel I must point out that WP:NAD is in fact a policy, as shown by, well, the policy notice at the top of the page. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. It's an explanation of a policy, an essay in other words. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Rescinding above statement; this is what I get for editing tired. Misreading tags, *tsk*, what is wrong with me? ;) Cheers! Scapler (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You didn't misread anything. Every policy page has that exact same tag on it. Powers ^T 16:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• hmmm ... it appears that someone has been boldly editing the {{policy}} template, partly due to discussion not found on the policy template talk page, but due to conversation on the WP:Policy and guidelines talk page (and those talk archives) My apologies for my previous statement. Confusing to say the least. Either way, I stand by my Keep !vote and rational. — Ched :  ?  22:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• • The list of examples at WP:NOT#DICTIONARY is not intended to be exhaustive. Powers ^T 15:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Neither is it intended to be arbitrarily and unilaterally extended. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Which is not occurring. It clearly says "Wikipedia is not a dictionary"; everything that implies is therefore also part of the policy. Powers ^T 16:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Suggestion For those who have difficulty with the article covering both actual pissing contests and "pissing contest" used as a phrase, how about we put the phrase usage in a subsection entitled, "Pissing contests in popular culture?" ;) Dekkappai (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like a pointless article to me, agree with nom The C of E (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Its usages (from literal to metaphor) are notable IMO. The article also goes into the history of the term and examples of usage, which is far more than a dictionary would be able to. This is perfectly analogous to the difference between a dictionary definition of, say, astronomy ("the study of the cosmos"), and the greater amount of content in our astronomy article. So WP:NAD really doesn't apply here. Awickert (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, but that's not the current policy-encyclopedias do not go 'beyond'. In fact it's the other way around, when you add two different definitions to an encyclopedia article that share the title, you become a dictionary article (or at least you become no longer an encyclopedia article). It's not an exaggeration to say it's more like he's added astrology to astronomy, and then justified it by both sharing a common root, which is true, but...- Wolfkeeper 01:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  Where did 'astrology' come from? J04n(talk page) 01:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  Exactly! Just because a phrase is derived from the same root (astrology and astronomy were literally one and the same in about 1700 or so), doesn't make them go in one article. Similarly a discussion and a urination contest may have the same name (homographs) for historical reasons but that doesn't make them at all the same thing, and hence they don't get to go in the same article (that's the policy). This article was defined wrongly, and hasn't improved; it is a dicdef, and dicdefs get deleted in AFDs if they don't change by the end of the AFD.- Wolfkeeper 03:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  I disagree with "encyclopedias do not go 'beyond'"; it seems obvious that an encyclopedia gives more information than a dictionary definition. Your other comments seem to take issue with the fact that it has two meanings squished into one article; sure, we could split them, but there isn't enough content IMO to make the split. Awickert (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  Yup, that's why it's a delete. Dictionary articles go beyond by having multiple defs; they have bigger scope but far less detail. Encyclopedia articles have smaller scope, but far more detail. You need smaller scope in this wiki to avoid tremendous overlap. Dictionaries overlap an awful lot, but it matters an awful lot less because they're so much shorter entries. In this wiki usually it's accidental, but in this case the genius creator created two articles with plenty of overlap all by himself, and one article (this one) is on two topics as well. Stir in a swear word and some borderline conflict of interest/not giving a... admin work and a lot of people giggling over the word 'pissing' and voting keep, and you've got a real mess.- Wolfkeeper 07:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  OK, now I see your point. However, I disagree with it. There is at least one science stub (Dynamic topography) off the top of my head that includes different definitions of the term in different fields, but which doesn't have enough material to make two substantial articles. (Actually, I should really get on expanding it.) But if this combining thing really isn't allowed, all that it seems is needed to resolve this issue is to split the article into two, or fork off the term "pissing contest" as relates to a silly argument. And if this is the only issue, I don't see why this is at AfD (though maybe the article has been much improved since the AfD started, as some previous comments suggest). Awickert (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep entertaining and edifying in equal measure. This article is quite a bit more than a simple "Dic/Def".Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Policy does not simply prohibit "Dic/Def"s. Dictionary etymologies, dictionary word usage examples, dictionary word usage notes, etc. Powers ^T 12:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep NOTCENSORED, well sourced. What else would you have an encyclopedia article about this term cover? Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That's just it, the encyclopedia should not be covering this term at all. It can cover the topic of pissing contests, but there's no need for an article on the phrase unless extensive sources can be found that talk about the phrase qua phrase. Powers ^T 12:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Agreed, as this is all the article has become; define the term and rattle off a litany of (sometimes flimsy) real-world examples and pseudo-historical examples. Scant discussion of the phrase itself and or why/how it is notable. This is urbandictionary material, at best. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.